FAQ's

Many organizations today are interested in being proactive by discovering and eliminating problems before they occur. An RCA methodology cannot predict the future for you, and you should be very wary of anyone who claims that they can. However, an investigation using a structured root cause analysis method will allow for the discovery of the "systemic" causes that are at work for not only the problem at hand that is being reactively analyzed, but also problems that have yet to occur.

If the specific "systemic" cause can be eliminated as a result of the reactive analysis, in essence, this is a proactive step because all future problems that would result from this same "systemic" cause will not occur. These systemic causes typically reside in the organizational culture, work processes, and procedures, as a few examples.

We offer facilitation services as well as root cause analysis program development, implementation, and auditing.

This is a question that frequently comes up in class. Usually, people ask this question when they have historically found management less than enthusiastic about solutions they propose. While there are many potential reasons for this, we like to take the high road. Let's assume that:

• Management likes to make good decisions.
• Good decisions about problem analysis involve:

Effectiveness: does the proposed solution make the problem go away?

Control: is the proposed solution within the manager's control to implement?

Profitability: does the proposed solution offer a good return on investment?

Getting managerial support is much easier when you show that your conclusions are based on a solid causal analysis. If all effective solutions are effective because they control one or more causes of the event, you need to show a decision maker:

• Which 'causes' you intend to control
• How you intend to achieve control
• Why, if you are successful in achieving control, will it solve the problem
• Finally, what is the return on investment

You may find that the decision maker has information to add to your analysis that you were unaware of that may change your conclusion.

Once you are convinced that standardizing your organization's approach to problem-solving is the best way towards organizational improvement, the next step is to pick a methodology. To someone trying to formulate a comparison, the differences can sometimes seem overwhelming.

The best way to discover the right method for your organization is to do your homework. Most credible methodologies have a book or some kind of literature available that describes their process. Read the literature and decide if the method makes sense.

Better yet, attend a training seminar. When you attend a training seminar, you have the ability to test-drive the methodology and challenge the instructor with specific questions from your world. Most of our clients begin by sending an initial group of representatives to one of our public seminars.

Some people think that root cause analysis is an engineering tool that is only useful to the technically adept. While some methods are overly complex, the Cordant™ RCA methodology is easy for anyone to learn and put into practice. If you want to know if the process can help you, read the following statement and decide whether it is true or false:

Everything always goes right in my organization.

True or False? If you answered true, congratulations! 

If you answered false, thank you for your honesty. As a bonus, you can rest assured that the methodology will be useful to you. The Cordant™ RCA methodology is extremely simple, yet extraordinarily powerful.

If you want more information about this, contact us and we will be happy to help you see how you can use the Cordant™ RCA methodology to effectively solve problems.

There is little doubt that problems are very costly. But how do you know whether you are getting a good return on your investment in Root Cause Analysis? We use the following formula to help us understand our return on investment.

Example:

Problem: Fractured Right Arm

Total Cost: $15,000

Cost of Analysis: 16 hours (4 employees, 4 hours) $1,600

Cost of Solutions: $2,000

The formula looks like this: Cost of Problem/(Cost of Analysis + Cost of Solutions)

In this case, the return on investment is roughly: 417% = $15,000/($1,600 + $2,000)

But did we really earn such a high return? Remember, no money ever came in the door as a result of this accident - it actually went out the door three times (cost of medical expenses, cost of analysis, and cost of solutions). Yet this formula makes it look as though instead of costing money, it actually yielded a stellar rate of return. By this logic, all you need to do is maximize the number of failures (especially expensive ones!) and your company will quickly become the industry leader.

But this can't be right, can it?

Think of it this way: money is flowing out your door every day due to failures, both large and small. The same is true for your competitors. The playing field is generally level in this respect. Industry leaders identify failures and effectively eliminate them.

Problems force us to spend money, and as such are like forced investments. But we get to decide whether or not we earn a return. As long as people remain imperfect, we are going to encounter problems with the systems we create - there is no way around it.

So we are left with a choice. We can choose to systematically identify and eliminate causes of problems using the Root Cause Analysis or we can continue doing what we've always done and hope the problem doesn't happen again.

When you use the Cordant™ Analysis method to analyze problems, what you really accomplish is greatly reducing the risk that the problem, or others like it, will recur.

Did the broken arm discussed above cost the company $15,000? Absolutely.

Did we spend $3,600 to make sure it never happens again?  Yes, this is also certain.

So if we greatly reduce the risk that this problem (or others like it) will happen again, we have reduced the risk of incurring the cost of this problem in the future. You spent $3,600. But if you spent it on the right solution, it is a very sound investment.

And we haven't even talked about the fact that it's extremely difficult to quantify the qualitative cost of a broken arm, such as pain and suffering, or the potential for a much worse injury. Yet even without calculating the value, the probability of incurring some sort of qualitative cost is also greatly reduced.

The bottom line: It pays to solve problems the first time. The Apollo Root Cause Analysis method helps to do this.

We can deliver training courses in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, German, French, Mandarin Chinese, and Bahasa Indonesia.

If you have the need to train in another language, please contact us. We will be happy to discuss translation and instructor development in the language of your choice.

Many of our clients are deeply committed to the Six Sigma process of quality improvement. The Cordant™ Root Cause Analysis methodology fits extremely well with a Six Sigma program.

Six Sigma, among other things, calls for the organization to recognize problems that lead to quality defects, and then to analyze those problems.

The Cordant™ Root Cause Analysis methodology provides a powerful tool to help understand the causes of quality deviations or process deficiencies. When you use the Cordant™ Root Cause Analysis methodology, you can be confident that the improvements you suggest directly attack causes of the problem you are trying to fix.

In today's world, we often find ourselves hundreds or thousands of miles away from our team members. This can make conducting an investigation challenging, but not impossible. Cordant™ RCA solutions are available virtually and allow for collaboration in real-time over the web.

The term "Root Cause" implies that there is one cause that catalyzes an event. This simply is not true. Any event has many causes, all of which are required in order for the event to occur.

For instance, if the causes of any open-air fire are:

• Oxygen
• Combustible material,
• An ignition source,
• And some action (such as a match strike) that catalyzes the event.

So which of these is the root cause?

The term root cause (as well as similar terms, such as "True Cause") is somewhat misleading. There are actually many causes for any event - each fundamentally required for the event to occur.

 A root cause can be defined as any cause that, when controlled or removed, makes the problem go away. In the fire example above, removing any of the causes prevents the fire from occurring. It becomes more a question of which causes you control.

You have (potentially) as many opportunities to find solutions to any problem as that problem has causes. Once you have identified your choices, your focus then shifts to choosing the best options.

Root Cause Analysis is the process by which the cause and effect relationships of an event (usually with undesirable consequences) are analyzed. The goal of conducting a root cause analysis is to find a solution that ensures that the undesirable event does not happen again.

You can use this method to solve any event-based problem. An event-based problem is any problem that is caused to exist. There are no "right" answers to event-based problems, only good, better, or best solutions. You actually solve event-based problems constantly throughout the day from the moment you wake until the moment you fall asleep at night. Here are some basic examples: 

• I'm hungry: What should I eat for breakfast?
• I need to get to work: Which route should I take and what means of transportation should I use?
• I need to get dressed: What clothing should I choose?

Most of us probably wouldn't use root cause analysis to find solutions to the problems listed above. But they are good examples most of us can relate to that show that event-based problems don't necessarily have correct answers.

Here are some examples of more significant events:

We had an accident today that sent an employee to the hospital.

• What can I do to make sure this kind of accident doesn't happen again?
• How can I make our work environment safer?

Our customer discovered a quality defect.

• How can I make sure that we find defects before parts are shipped?
• How can I reduce our defect rate?

Today an event caused the power plant to go offline.

• How do I increase the reliability of critical plant components?
• How can I maximize up-time?

We released a small amount of chlorine gas yesterday, but it could have been much larger.

• How do we prevent this specific incident from happening again?
• How can we make our facility safer for employees and our neighbors in the community?

A key employee left our company today.

• Why did the employee decide to quit?
• What can we do to increase our retention rate?

Our customer service department is overloaded.

• How can we solve individual customer complaints?
• How can we maintain a higher overall service level?

Problems present themselves as independent incidents. But they are usually part of a broader systemic deficiency. For instance, a single accident can be part of a high injury rate involving several injuries over a period of time.

These are only a few examples of event-based problems that can be analyzed with the Cordant™ Root Cause Analysis method

We offer root cause analysis incident investigation program development, implementation, auditing as well as defect elimination programs.

This question is critical because it illustrates an important constraint that we all encounter - we don't have enough time to solve every problem. Therefore, it is crucial that we create a system that tells us when to move forward with an investigation and when not to.

We can help you develop a set of threshold criteria that will be used to trigger an analysis. These criteria are specific to your organization. They derive directly from your strategic goals. They also depend upon the resources you have committed to conducting investigations.

• Facilitators: The ideal Facilitator is someone whose job involves solving problems on a daily basis. Facilitators can come from any level of the organization.
• Participants: Participants are those who will be called in to support an investigation, but not to run the investigation themselves.
• Managers: Managers are rarely involved in the process of analyzing specific problems. Yet they require special training in order to understand problem reports as well as to provide effective support to the program.

No organization is problem-free. Systems we create are always in need of adjustment - sometimes minor, and sometimes radical. Problems show us where to focus process improvement efforts.

When we standardize the problem-solving process, we eliminate variability and confusion. When everyone speaks the same language, we communicate more effectively.

Standardization is a crucial step towards creating a learning organization. When people in the organization standardize their approach to problem-solving, they become better at generating and disseminating new ideas, as well as improving work processes.